pouët.net

would like to see more new demos on both instead of tellin some specs.. but somehow shows that they arent dead.

i can't believe that in 2008 people still do the old my-system-is-superior-superior-to-yours game.
in 1991, i would get beaten up at the schoolyard for owning a c64 instead of an amiga (that, and because of my excellent hairdo that everybody was envious about!), things where really burning back then and your life depended on whether you were with the cool amiga-guys, the not so cool c64-guys, or the smelly overweight and slightly mental atari-guys.

thanks for this awesome trip down the memory lane, you guys sure know how to make me feel nostalgic! :'}

all that would be funny, if it was not about butchering the results of the other scene. I find it simply unmature to accuse others people work with weak arguments about what is -in their opinion- cheating and what not. The results matter and I simply want people acknowledge these enormous achivements.

\twh

I don't get all the fuss. On most platforms, extended hardware is considered perfectly OK and everyone uses it. For example, many Amiga demos use RAM extensions and turbocards, Spectrum demos require weird disk interfaces, and yes, A8 demos use RAM extensions, too. The C64 is, in fact, one of the few platforms where extended hardware isn't the standard. (In fact, the only other examples that come to my mind are consoles, but even on these, you mostly need things like modchips or flashcarts to run stuff.)

My point is: If extending the hardware is common practice in the respective platforms' demoscene, I don't see what's wrong with it. Yes, that's bad luck for owners of the original, unexpanded models. I perfectly see the benefit of having exactly one fixed configuration and being able to run 2008's fresh demos on a stock 1982 computer. That's cool, really (no, I'm not sarcastic). But then again, no one (except trolls) complains about modern 060 Amiga demos that don't run on stock 1200's, not even the non-Amiga folks. Why is it such a problem to accept that Atari XL/XE demos require some amount of hardware extension, then?

(I don't even try to apply that discussion to the PC, as there are *zero* demos for the original PC. Even "8088 corruption" requires a hard disk extension and a soundcard!!!!111 :)

old64scener: I had a c128d in my collection but sold it as there where no demos to watch and I did never use it anyway :)

skate: that would be nice :)

The Atari 8-bitters sure can produce some nice 'newschool' effects, both "The Shrine" and "Numen" are very impressive.
As I understand it they have the 4x4 and 2x2 modes for free compared to the C64, aswell as the higher CPU clock. However it also seems like they do quite a bit more advanced 3D with z-sorted scenes and inconvex objects compared to C64. Is it simply a case of much more precalced stuff, or do they have some other advantage. Can't imagine that the extra CPU would make much difference.

Also after reading the specs for the MSX2 that hitchhikr posted, I really really want to try to get hold of one of those and code a demo for it!

Oswald, stop fighting windmills and come roast some marshmallows with me, sir.

vanja :)

"Why is it such a problem to accept that Atari XL/XE demos require some amount of hardware extension, then?"

because comparing hardware extended atari 8 bits with a stock c64 is unfair?

Oswald: It's no more or less fair than e.g. comparing a VIC-20 with a C64, or an Amiga with an ST, or any platform with any other, for that matter. The A8 machines are simply a different platform, and on that platform it's usual to use hardware expansions in demos. Yes, this sucks, but that's the way things evolved, and it did evolve this way on almost every platform.

Oswald I don't get your point... The most effects that you can see on Atari 8bit demos DON'T NEED ANY MEMORY EXPANSIONS - only the demo flow needs its...

95% effects in Atari demos (include Numen) would run on STOCK UNEXPANDED Atari8bit... and this is a point... if STOCK Atari can handle that effects... I don't see what is unfair in comparing effects on Atari to C64...

here is a another example that STOCK Atari can handle 3d engine used in numen...

oswald,

if it is unfair, then let's stop comparing? :-) If I would design today an Atari XL/XE demo I would not voluntarily limit the memory usage to 64k. Why? Because it simply does not matter. It's the production itself what matters and that people can enjoy it.

grtx,
\twh

twh, haven't you heard? size does matter :>

as far as i know and if i remember the coding session of numen some of the fx run on stock atari as fox/eru send me wip versions of the screens prior linking... but haven't looked a long time ago in the sources... I am not worthy to understand the code... both are simple genius.

"Oswald: It's no more or less fair than e.g. comparing a VIC-20 with a C64,"

oh, then stock atari xl sucks, because I can plug in 20mhz 16meg card in my c64! or should we compare stock c64 vs stock atari rather for a fair result ?

Pr0be, Numen would look much worse without the +320kb. there would be silent loading pauses, since music can hardly be played while an atari is loading. One of the main power of that demo is the fast part changings without pauses.. but what would happen without extra ram ? boring mega demo. sometimes reduced lame music while loading.. uhh ohh...

twh, yeah then why dont you do a pc demo? why limit yourself to atari xl ? it does not matter innit ?

Oswald: If you really want to compare anything, you need to compare the *usual* setups, not the stock setups.

KeyJ! I totally disagree. You have to compare the stock systems. That's what the headlines are telling us. If a Ataridemo would run flawlessly without a RAM-Extension it should give me the opportunity to choose wheter to run with or without more RAM. In the stock case this would mean with black screen and no sound between the parts. So everyone would be able to see the production, on the other hand it would prove that no more than 64k are used...

...without any doubt "Numen" is hardcore and is fully out of critique. But If I have 320kB of RAM, I use it. Not just for holding the next Part.

OK, I see the point of giving the user the choice to see a stripped-down version of the demo if the hardware isn't sufficient to watch it in its full glory. But I can't agree on the "only stock hardware matters" thing. As I already said, this would rule out almost all modern Amiga demos, for example. Anyway, I'm already becoming tired of this discussion :) I'm not an Atari zealot, I didn't watch the demos in question until yesterday. In fact, I didn't even find them all that impressive overall (except for a few massively jaw-dropping scenes). I was just trying to make a point that bitching about the use of aftermarket RAM expansions which seem to be very common in the A8 scene (I can't stress that enough!) isn't appropriate.

Anyone knows which exact computer the Atari 8bit demos usually run on? There seems to be a lot of different models around, some of them newer, faster, etc. than C64, and probably more expensive at the time as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_family

"I was just trying to make a point that bitching about the use of aftermarket RAM expansions (...) isn't appropriate."

so when you judge on how good a demo is, RAM size is inappropriate? then a faster CPU is inappropriate too ? and the size of the demo? inappropriate? Maybe there's some difference ? We had to drop the speed of most of the effects in Desert Dream to be able to load while they are displayed. While Numen just copyes the next part out of the extra ram. There's some difference between adding extra ram and assing extra skill isnt it ?

assing=adding :D

Yes, its more impressive to solve things on the original hardware, no matter which system.
Anyway, a nice demo is a nice thing no matter on which the achievement is based.
Still people have the choice, not to add any RAM to their system etc. and abstain from watching prods like numen.
The real point imho is that comparing systems is not unfair - its senseless.
Compare one prod with the other on the same system, but not e.g. Numen with Deus ex machina.
You can compare styles, transitions etc. thus the design of two prods, but the code, its an endless discussion without a real result.

Its simular in grafics, compare FLI gfx on c64 with 16c on ST ??
Or Pixel with renderart ??? Mods with chiptunes ???? WTF??

as for outsider it would be the best for me to buy main unit & floppy & maybe some popular cartridge.
the beauty of commie is that you can take one off your friend's shelf and enjoy killing productions.

speaking of mods, extensions - of course they are nice, especially when they are A BIT popular so you won't end up watching all three average demos made for it.

I'm a little bit bored of this discussion. There are not so many Atari XL coders (at least comparing to amount of c64 coders) to defend their platform technically. This discussion is not fair at all.

I'm sure Oswald can beat some of his own c64 effects using an Atari XL without RAM expansion (after a little practise of course). I believe both machines have some advantages/disadvantages over each other.

Now, my real point is... ;) I found some cross assemblers for Atari XL and they work fine. But I prefer using ACME which I'm very familiar with. So, is there any special headers for Atari XL files? I saw that XEX files starts with $ff $ff. But I need more detailed information on it.

Is there a good site somewhere wirh tutorials and such for coding the XL/XE?

AFAIK this is the main site for atari fans: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s=a71b599f2b13f91d855b9cdcb7ed7484&showforum=12 ask there :)